As is the ECHOway we are developing this post out in
the open and if you have something to say or add please use the
COMMENT SECTION BELOW
.
When the current legislation for local governance in Tasmania was framed it was 1993, Internet communications was only just at a beginning point. Where we have come to today was absolutely unanticipatable. The 21st Century world is quite a different place yet the legislation essentially remains as if the world hasn’t changed one jot.
To think of the legislation as being redundant would not be an exaggeration – some go so far as to describe the Act as Neanderthal. Moreover, in terms of current understandings it is well past its use-by-date and it fails to deliver in so many ways. Most importantly the paradigm within which the legislation was framed leaves far too many opportunities for dysfunctional behaviours and at its worst corruption.
The first problem facing local governance in Tasmania is the wastefulness of having 29 local jurisdictions for a population that hovers around half a million people. That is:
• 29 mayors and however many councillors state wide;
• 29 general managers state wide; and
• Unnecessary and it leads to wasteful capital expenditure and infrastructure expenditure state wide.
Even a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ will tell you that is something like two Billion dollars is being expended without delivering quality governance or the kinds of fiscal, social and cultural dividends commensurate with that expenditure. While the $2BN claim might seem a tad extravagant the actual 'over spend' is almost inestimable. By extension, this can be uses, indeed arguably has been used, as an argument for the maintenance of the status quo in Local Govt in Tasmania – if it isn't broken don't fix it etc etc.
To quote Rosemary Armitage, Independent Legislative Council Member for Launceston and once a Launceston Alderperson, she has invoked that famous quote that Albert Einstien gave us and where he says "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result". So, there is some residual wisdom out there and given half a chance it can be engaged with.
While Tasmania is not Switzerland, the Swiss semi-direct democratic governance model is much more than functional . Since 2011 Swiss federal legislative power is vested in the two chambers of the Federal Assembly, the National Council and the Council of States. Yes, this is a 'national model' but it one that is out of kilter with the 'national models' that surround it and with credible outcomes by comparison.
In Switzerland, for any change in the constitution, a referendum is mandatory; for any change in a law, a referendum can be requested. In addition, the people may present a constitutional popular initiative to introduce amendments to the federal constitution. The people also assume a role similar to the constitutional court, which does not exist, and thus act as the guardian of the rule of law. It wouldn't be rocket science to apply 'Swiss Modelling' to local governance.
Any argument that by comparison the 'Westminster System' of governance is superior, in the end it is hollow. The Westminster System is founded upon a failed and deeply flawed 19th Colonial paradigm. In the 21st C, there are growing and compelling needs for ongoing revision in governance, and that is so if the challenges of our times are to be faced and met. Moreover, communities' 'cultural realities' are diverse and one-size-fits-all understandings fail too many too often.
Sadly, the Local Govt. Board empanelled to undertake a "review of the role, function, and design of local government in Tasmania" appears to to be disinclined to consider anything beyond the current failing and largely redundant 'elected representational INDIRECT governance model' in respect to the function, and design of local government in Tasmania.
The Amalgamation Hurdle
Politically, local government amalgamations are unlikely to go anywhere interesting anytime soon. Local elected representatives see the proposition as a threat to their community standing – and oh yes, to an income stream. Almost to 'a man' – pardon the genderisation – they argue that "local grass roots representation is what people want" – and oftentimes they are quite right. However, if asked to consider how much ‘the status quo’ is costing in lost opportunities people seem ready enough to consider the need for change.
Realistically Tasmania could have a single local governance jurisdiction given its population, albeit not anything one can contemplate within the paradigm of the current Act and the mindset that framed it.
Consider this, Brisbane City Council with an area of 1,343 km² and a population of 1,231,605 people (2018) is served by 27 councillors. Brisbane City Council is the largest local government in Australia and all Brisbane residents elect the Lord Mayor – See https://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/about-council.
Brisbane City Council is about five Tasmania’s and as any visitor to the city will tell you it is a vibrant city well serviced by its local government. There are other large councils around Australia, and the world, that demonstrate that Tasmania is currently over governed and essentially not so well served. The facts speak very loudly for themselves when one actually gets down to doing the research.
However good Brisbane City Council is it does not – by itself provide a model – present a case for amalgamations in Tasmania without ‘root and branch’ 21st C reimaginings of the ‘governance model’.
That is the hurdle to be jumped and jumped it must be!
What might a 21st C governance model look like?
In oder to answer such a question it necessary to go to first principles in order to lay a few ghosts and dispel some of the bureaucratic mythology that has accumulated around 'governance'. The mythologies that have gathered themselves around local government in Tasmania is replete every kind of history.
Wikipedia – albeit an anonymous 'authority' and written collaboratively – tells us that 'governance' comprises all of the processes of governing – whether undertaken by the government of a region/state/nation, by a market or by a network – over a social system – family, tribe, formal or informal organisation, a territory or across territories – through the laws, norms, power or language of an organised society.
Governance relates to "the processes of interaction and decision-making among the actors involved in a collective problem that lead to the creation, reinforcement, or reproduction of social norms and institutions" – Wikipedia.
In lay terms, governance can be described as the 'political processes' by which nations, organisations, people, determine the social and cultural norms under which they collectively choose to live.
A variety of entities, known generically as 'governing bodies', can govern. The most formal is a government, a body whose sole responsibility and authority is to make binding decisions in a given geopolitical system – such as a nation/state – by establishing laws and regulations.
Other types of governing include an organisation – such as a corporation recognised as a legal entity by a government – a socio-political group – chiefdom, tribe, gang, family, religious denomination, etc., or another, informal group of people.
Many people in the 'management domain' confuse management with governance. There is a real need to dispel the myths, and the 'blending and blanding', misinforming local governance in Tasmania.
Dr. Lynda Bourne tells us that "management and governance fulfil different purposes within an organisation [jurisdiction/operation]". If her hypothesis holds, then it follows:
Dr. Lynda Bourne tells us that "management and governance fulfil different purposes within an organisation [jurisdiction/operation]". If her hypothesis holds, then it follows:
• "if something is designated as a ‘management function’ it cannot also be designated a governance function"; and
• "conversely governance functions are not management functions'.
Dr Bourne points to the widely accepted functions of 'management' where Henri Fayol (1841 – 1925) defined the five functions of management in his 1916 book Administration Industrielle et Generale, "they are:
"1. to forecast and plan,
2. to organise
3. to command or direct (lead)
4. to coordinate
5. to control (French: contrôller: in the sense that a manager must receive feedback about a process in order to make necessary adjustments and must analyse the deviations.)"
Representative democracy or 'indirect democracy, representative government' is founded on the principle of elected officials representing a group of people, as opposed to direct democracy or 'pure democracy' in which people decide on policy initiatives directly.
Nearly all modern 'Western-style democracies' are representative democracies albeit understood differently in various cultural and political contexts.
Except by 'political convention', in Australia/Tasmania there is no compelling imperative for local governance to conform to the conventions of elected representative democracy. Indeed in a 21st C context, given that direct democracy modelling is increasingly feasible via the Internet and digital technologies.
Representative democracy or 'indirect democracy, representative government' is founded on the principle of elected officials representing a group of people, as opposed to direct democracy or 'pure democracy' in which people decide on policy initiatives directly.
Nearly all modern 'Western-style democracies' are representative democracies albeit understood differently in various cultural and political contexts.
Except by 'political convention', in Australia/Tasmania there is no compelling imperative for local governance to conform to the conventions of elected representative democracy. Indeed in a 21st C context, given that direct democracy modelling is increasingly feasible via the Internet and digital technologies.
Options and opportunities for change
In a 21st Century context that change could, and arguably should, move from the current, but broken, 'elected representational INDIRECT model' to, or towards, a 'DIRECT democracy model' (DDM). Ronald Regan – the USA's 40th president 1981 to 1989 – where he is quoted as saying 'the status quo is [quite simply] Latin for the mess was are in", even in 21st C terms, he hit the nail right on the head.
Sticking band-aids on the ailing and deeply wounded current model will not heal the wounds nor deal with the dysfunctionalism that is increasingly evident. Neither can, nor should, local governance be reduced to metrics and algorithms despite all the promise the Internet and the attendant CYBERtechnologies hold.
The case for a paradigm change away from the current 'elected representational INDIRECT model' (ERIM) to a ''DIRECT democracy model' (DDM) could never be stronger than under the current circumstances.
Once the need for change is acknowledged, and acted upon proactively, there is much to be negotiated within the Communities of Ownership & Interest (COI). That is, the local communities with whom the issue of local governance rests – and where the reality of DDM kicks in most poignantly.
TASKone will be to engage with the Community of Ownership & Interest (COI) in a meaningful way. Here there is a 'tried and true' mechanism to enable that. That is the now well understood model 'Citizen's Assemblies' – sometimes called Citizen's Juries – that are in use internationally and increasing so in Australia. The newDEMOCRACY Foundation has established a credible track record in regard to facilitating such 'assemblies' – and most importantly at arm's length. These 'assemblies' disrupt the status quo. Moreover, the reflect community sensibilities and sensitivities quite accurately.
Given the status quo in Tasmania, there now must be an opportunity to change – rather a 'need' for change. Arguably, the case for taking up the option to move away from the status quo to a 'DIRECT Democracy Model' DDM should be taken
– and sooner rather than later.
Sticking band-aids on the ailing and deeply wounded current model will not heal the wounds nor deal with the dysfunctionalism that is increasingly evident. Neither can, nor should, local governance be reduced to metrics and algorithms despite all the promise the Internet and the attendant CYBERtechnologies hold.
The case for a paradigm change away from the current 'elected representational INDIRECT model' (ERIM) to a ''DIRECT democracy model' (DDM) could never be stronger than under the current circumstances.
Once the need for change is acknowledged, and acted upon proactively, there is much to be negotiated within the Communities of Ownership & Interest (COI). That is, the local communities with whom the issue of local governance rests – and where the reality of DDM kicks in most poignantly.
TASKone will be to engage with the Community of Ownership & Interest (COI) in a meaningful way. Here there is a 'tried and true' mechanism to enable that. That is the now well understood model 'Citizen's Assemblies' – sometimes called Citizen's Juries – that are in use internationally and increasing so in Australia. The newDEMOCRACY Foundation has established a credible track record in regard to facilitating such 'assemblies' – and most importantly at arm's length. These 'assemblies' disrupt the status quo. Moreover, the reflect community sensibilities and sensitivities quite accurately.
Therefore, up to now it is no surprise that in Tasmania doing such a thing and challenging 'incumbency' has proven to be unthinkable even when there are plenty of instances where success can be pointed to.
Clearly, their disruptiveness has won them no accolades in Tasmania to date. This is especially so in the management paradigm where 'if one goes about turning over rocks', you are bound to expose 'bureaucratic empire building' in full swing in so, so, many local government jurisdictions.
Typically, these 'fiefdoms' are headed up by unelected and largely unaccountable bureaucrats vested with discretionary authority under Tasmania's current Local Govt. Act 1993. Here, the opportunities for corruption and distortion abound.
All this in play elsewhere in Australia was poignantly exposed, and lampooned, some time ago in the popular television series "GRASS ROOTS" – set in and around Arcadia Waters Council . In fact this series was and still does, provide a clear an ever so thinly disguised raison d'être for change.
Indeed, the desire for change has been lurking in our subconscious in a rather all pervasive ways for quite a long time.
How might a 'direct democracy model' be implemented?
If meaningful change is to be pursued all options need to on the table and actively investigated, –and rigorously – in an open and transparent way. Here there is no room for the mindset that tells us that X, Y or Z is 'a given'. Nothing is, nor should anything automatically be, 'a given'. In the end,
Clearly, their disruptiveness has won them no accolades in Tasmania to date. This is especially so in the management paradigm where 'if one goes about turning over rocks', you are bound to expose 'bureaucratic empire building' in full swing in so, so, many local government jurisdictions.
Typically, these 'fiefdoms' are headed up by unelected and largely unaccountable bureaucrats vested with discretionary authority under Tasmania's current Local Govt. Act 1993. Here, the opportunities for corruption and distortion abound.
All this in play elsewhere in Australia was poignantly exposed, and lampooned, some time ago in the popular television series "GRASS ROOTS" – set in and around Arcadia Waters Council . In fact this series was and still does, provide a clear an ever so thinly disguised raison d'être for change.
Indeed, the desire for change has been lurking in our subconscious in a rather all pervasive ways for quite a long time.
How might a 'direct democracy model' be implemented?
 |
| CLICK HERE TO GO TO SOURCE |
what is at stake is effective democratic governance that is fit for purpose
For instance, politicised boundary lines need to be dispensed with. 'Places and cultural realities' are defined by their geography and in turn cultural realities define place – and the cultural imperatives involved in 'placemaking' has a profound impact upon geographic realities.
Therefore, river catchments offer a more than appropriate alternative to the currently politicised boundary system that has mitigated against meaningful and more appropriate imaginings of place and 'placedness'. See the ECHOletter
Fundamentally local governance is about place, placemaking and placescaping. This the fundamental task of local governance. All of this are deeply embedded in local governance's planning functions. None of this is well enough served, or indeed understood, by the current status quoism in play.
The status quoist in local governance, as likely as not, are going to come marching out of the woodwork arguing for the continuation of the ERIDM model to persist. They'll talk about the 'democratic imperatives', traditional approaches and heaven forbid the 'proper way'. Somewhere some wise man or other noted that if truth be told, "the proper way is that straight and narrow pathway that ultimately leads to mediocrity." In the current circumstance with 'climate changer', WAR in Europe and the persistent COVID pandemic, there is no room at all for mediocrity.
When decoded what the status quoists will by-and-large be advocating will be their continued access to the opportunities the status quo delivers – salaries, superannuation packages, business opportunities, stipends, informal dividends, etc. etc. etc. Actually none of this might turn out to be under threat except perhaps in the case of 'senior executives' and the mega salaries.
Just like it is with 'renewable energy' there will be an ongoing need for the productive players in a DDM model. It is just the case that a slightly different skills base will be required, and as likely as not, different people will be getting the rewards for different outcomes and the different services needed and provided – different performance indicators. This is what 'change' and 'paradigm shifts' are all about – productive disruption.
Against that backgrounding there is a great deal to be negotiated, The 'top down' approach that marks the. ERIDM model will not deliver change and the evidence for that in Tasmania is everywhere one cares to look. However, the DDM model supported by 'Citizen's Assemblies' is well placed to do so and especially so given the much more level playing field the DDM model offers.
For instance, politicised boundary lines need to be dispensed with. 'Places and cultural realities' are defined by their geography and in turn cultural realities define place – and the cultural imperatives involved in 'placemaking' has a profound impact upon geographic realities.
Therefore, river catchments offer a more than appropriate alternative to the currently politicised boundary system that has mitigated against meaningful and more appropriate imaginings of place and 'placedness'. See the ECHOletter
Fundamentally local governance is about place, placemaking and placescaping. This the fundamental task of local governance. All of this are deeply embedded in local governance's planning functions. None of this is well enough served, or indeed understood, by the current status quoism in play.
The status quoist in local governance, as likely as not, are going to come marching out of the woodwork arguing for the continuation of the ERIDM model to persist. They'll talk about the 'democratic imperatives', traditional approaches and heaven forbid the 'proper way'. Somewhere some wise man or other noted that if truth be told, "the proper way is that straight and narrow pathway that ultimately leads to mediocrity." In the current circumstance with 'climate changer', WAR in Europe and the persistent COVID pandemic, there is no room at all for mediocrity.
When decoded what the status quoists will by-and-large be advocating will be their continued access to the opportunities the status quo delivers – salaries, superannuation packages, business opportunities, stipends, informal dividends, etc. etc. etc. Actually none of this might turn out to be under threat except perhaps in the case of 'senior executives' and the mega salaries.
Just like it is with 'renewable energy' there will be an ongoing need for the productive players in a DDM model. It is just the case that a slightly different skills base will be required, and as likely as not, different people will be getting the rewards for different outcomes and the different services needed and provided – different performance indicators. This is what 'change' and 'paradigm shifts' are all about – productive disruption.
Against that backgrounding there is a great deal to be negotiated, The 'top down' approach that marks the. ERIDM model will not deliver change and the evidence for that in Tasmania is everywhere one cares to look. However, the DDM model supported by 'Citizen's Assemblies' is well placed to do so and especially so given the much more level playing field the DDM model offers.
Nomenclatures, Titles and meaning for a Direct Democracy Model
 |
| LINK |
reflects the the title give the person who take charge of a 'dismissed Council', their task and their method of appointment.
Consequently, a member of a Commission – Local Governance Commission (LGC) – would be known as 'Commissioner X for XYZ', they would be in receipt of a significant salary/stipend and they would hold their position at the pleasure of the Minister and Cabinet for a maximum of 10 years but with their tenure reviewed every four years to reflect their expected full time career commitment to the position.
In addition:
• ... Any candidate for nomination as a Local Governance Commissioner who is a property developer or who is an active director of or an active member of a property investment operation will be precluded from holding a position on a LGC.
• ... Commissioners of a LGC will be tasked to formally receive, consider and where appropriate act upon Citizen's Submissions, Petitions and Referenda that meet and satisfy prescribed criteria determined by the Minister.
• ... Commissioners of a LGC will be tasked to put in place policies and strategic plans relative to housing and authorised to grant operational funding to 'housing bodies' on a competitive basis relative to LGC 'catchment oriented' strategic positioning.
• ... Commissioners of a LGC will be tasked to oversight the appointment of 'governing bodies, trustees and/or boards of directors of standalone public not-for-profit operations such as recreation facilities and cultural institutions such as museums and theatres, Resource Recovery/Waste Management Operations, occupying publicly owned infrastructure.
• ... Commissioners of a LGC will be authorised to grant operational funding to such bodies on a competitive basis relative to LGC 'catchment oriented' strategic positioning and funding available via property taxation/rates.
IF there are to be 'three Commissions' each would/could have 11 members to reflect the diversity of the jurisdiction they serve. In regard to a Commission's 'accountability and transparency' mechanisms to ensure that must be put in place and one being 'Catchment Councils' and another being that ALL current 'Council Assets' being placed under the control of the relevant LGC – or some other appropriate 'authority'.
A Catchment Council (CC) might be:
• ... Appointed by a Commission and endorsed by the Minister with a member's tenure not exceeding say five(?) years;
• ... Appointed to initiate 'Citizens' Forums' to consider 'catchment issues' and present their findings to the LGCs and the Minister;
• ... Appointed with the authority to form an alliance/s with CCs in order to act collaboratively and cooperatively when and where appropriate;
• ... With CC Members being paid sitting fees and out-of-pocket expenses from within an allocated budget;
• ... With CC Members being served by a 'Secretariate' funded from within an allocated budget;
• ... With CC Members being tasked to facilitate the presentations of Citizen's Submissions, Petitions and Referenda to the LGC in their catchment acting as a CC alone or in alliance with various CCs .
• ... With CC Members being tasked to represent their 'catchment communities' in regard to 'placemaking' and the functions articulated in Section 20 in the current Tasmanian Local Govt. Act 1993 and in accord with the 'Direct Democracy Model'.
• ... With CC Members being tasked to oversight oversight 'public assets' under the control of their relevant LGC .
Against this or like backgrounding, the State Government could, indeed should, initiate a 'Citizen's Assembly' convened under a the auspices of an independent 'facilitator's' or agency tasked to:
• ... Deliberate on the 'Direct Democracy Model' and the form it could/should take in Tasmania in a 21st C context;
• ... Deliberate on the functions and powers of various machinations of the 'Direct Democracy Model' and make recommendations to the Tasmanian electorate and government;
• ... Seek the inputs and evidence drawn from a diversity experts, activists et al;
• ... Conduct its deliberations in public in a 21st C context; and
• ... Report its findings to the Minister and Cabinet.
IN CONCLUSION
In order find a way forward a number of steps need to be taken:
FIRSTLY
In order find a way forward a number of steps need to be taken:
FIRSTLY
Persuade the State Government that it will cost effective and electorally to move to a Direct Democracy Model for local governance in Tasmania as an alternative to council amalgamations and patching up the flaws and failure in current and largely redundant Local Govt Act 1993 – and sooner rather than later.
SECONDLY
SECONDLY
Proactively initiate a set of 'arm's length' protocols that facilitate Local Government Citizen's Assemblies that will enable Tasmanian ratepayers, residents, planners et al to interrogate options and opportunities for change relative to local governance towards achieving more equitable outcomes.
THIRDLY
THIRDLY
Proactively 'market', advocate and facilitate the use of Citizen's Assemblies and Cyber Facilitated Referenda to engage Tasmanian ratepayers, residents, planners et al more directly in local placemaking initiatives and developments towards achieving more equitable and sustainable outcomes.
FOURTHLY
FOURTHLY
Proactively work towards building and establishing and/or acquiring the CYBERnetworks and DIGITALtechnologies required to service a 21st Century Direct Democracy Model for Tasmania.
Once these things have been achieved there will be an ongoing need to refine protocols and adjust legislation as the changes embedded in shift away from a 'elected representational INDIRECT governance model' in respect to local governance, to a Direct Democracy Model requires fundamental and multi-dimensional change in the short, medium and longer term.
Once these things have been achieved there will be an ongoing need to refine protocols and adjust legislation as the changes embedded in shift away from a 'elected representational INDIRECT governance model' in respect to local governance, to a Direct Democracy Model requires fundamental and multi-dimensional change in the short, medium and longer term.
No comments:
Post a Comment